Erratum to: Using a discrete choice experiment to value the QLU-C10D: feasibility and sensitivity to presentation format (Quality of Life Research, (2016), 25, 3, (637-649), 10.1007/s11136-015-1115-3);Using a discrete choice experiment to value the QLU-C10D: feasibility and sensitivity to presentation format

Quality of Life Research

Volumn 25, Issue 3, 2016, Pages 637-649

  Norman, R ^a,b   Viney, R ^b   Aaronson, N K ^c   Brazier, J E ^d   Cella, D ^e   Costa, D S J ^f   Fayers, P M ^g,h   Kemmler, G ⁱ   Peacock, S ^j,k,l   Pickard, A S ^m   Rowen, D ^d   Street, D J ⁿ   Velikova, G ^o,p   Young, T A ^d   King, M T ^f,q  

^a CURTIN UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY SYDNEY   (Australia)

^c NETHERLANDS CANCER INSTITUTE   (Netherlands)

^d UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

^e NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^f UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

^g UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN   (United Kingdom)

^h NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY   (Norway)

ⁱ INNSBRUCK MEDICAL UNIVERSITY   (Austria)

^j SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^k Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control ARCC   (Canada)

^l BRITISH COLUMBIA CANCER AGENCY   (Canada)

^m UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO   (United States)

ⁿ UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY SYDNEY   (Australia)

^o UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS   (United Kingdom)

^p ST JAMES S UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^q UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

more..

Author keywords

Cancer; Discrete choice experiment; QLQ C30; Quality of life; Utility

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CHI SQUARE TEST; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT TOOL; COGNITION; DISCRETE CHOICE EXPERIMENT; EVALUATION RESEARCH; EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN; FEASIBILITY STUDY; FEMALE; HEALTH STATUS; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LIKERT SCALE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; ONLINE ANALYTICAL PROCESSING; QLU C10D INSTRUMENT; QUESTIONNAIRE; REFERENCE VALUE; SEMI STRUCTURED INTERVIEW; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; NEOPLASM; PROCEDURES; PSYCHOLOGY; PSYCHOMETRY; QUALITY OF LIFE; STATISTICAL MODEL; TELEPHONE;

CHOICE BEHAVIOR; FEMALE; HEALTH STATUS; HUMANS; LOGISTIC MODELS; MALE; NEOPLASMS; PSYCHOMETRICS; QUALITY OF LIFE; SURVEYS AND QUESTIONNAIRES; TELEPHONE;

EID: 84958758693     PISSN: 09629343     EISSN: 15732649     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11136-017-1546-0     Document Type: Erratum

References (29)

1. Bansback, N., Brazier, J., Tsuchiya, A., & Anis, A. (2012). Using a discrete choice experiment to estimate societal health state utility values. Journal of Health Economics,31, 306–318.
2. Norman, R., Cronin, P., & Viney, R. (2013). A pilot discrete choice experiment to explore preferences for EQ-5D-5L health states. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy,11(3), 287–298.
3. Norman, R., Viney, R., Brazier, J., Burgess, L., Cronin, P., King, M., et al. (2014). Valuing SF-6D health states using a discrete choice experiment. Medical Decision Making,34(6), 773–786.
4. Stolk, E. A., Oppe, M., Scalone, L., & Krabbe, P. F. M. (2010). Discrete choice modeling for the quantification of health states: The case of the EQ-5D. Value in Health,13(8), 1005–1013.
5. Viney, R., Norman, R., Brazier, J., Cronin, P., King, M. T., Ratcliffe, J., & Street, D. (2014). An Australian discrete choice experiment to value EQ-5D health states. Health Economics,23(6), 729–742.
6. Louviere, J., Carson, R. T., Burgess, L., Street, D., & Marley, A. A. (2013). Sequential preference question factors influencing completion rates and response times using an online panel. The Journal of Choice Modelling,8, 19–31.
7. Brazier, J., Roberts, J., & Deverill, M. (2002). The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. Journal of Health Economics,21(2), 271–292.
8. Brazier, J., & Roberts, J. (2004). The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-12. Medical Care,42(9), 851–859.
9. Rowen, D., Brazier, J., Young, T., Gaugris, S., Craig, B. M., King, M. T., & Velikova, G. (2011). Deriving a preference-based measure for cancer using the EORTC QLQ-C30. Value in Health,14(5), 721–731.
10. King, M. T., Costa, D. S. J., Aaronson, N. K., Brazier, J. E., Cella, D. F., Fayers, P. M., et al. (submitted). QLU-C10D: A health state classification system for a multi-attribute utility measure based on the EORTC QLQ-C30. Quality of Life Research (currently under review).
11. Ware, J. E., Jr., & Gandek, B. (1998). Overview of the SF-36 health survey and the international quality of life assessment (IQOLA) project. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology,51(11), 903–912.
12. Aaronson, N. K., Ahmedzai, S., Bergman, B., Bullinger, M., Cull, A., Duez, N. J., et al. (1993). The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: A quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. Journal of the National Cancer Institute,85(5), 365–376.
13. Kessler, R. C., Andrews, G., Colpe, L. J., Hiripi, E., Mroczek, D. K., Normand, S. L., et al. (2002). Short screening scales to monitor population prevalences and trends in non-specific psychological distress. Psychological Medicine,32(6), 959–976.
14. Herdman, M., Gudex, C., Lloyd, A., Janssen, M. F., Kind, P., Parkin, D., et al. (2011). Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Quality of Life Research,20(10), 1727–1736.
15. Colbourn, C. J., & Dinitz, J. H. (2006). Handbook of Combinatorial designs. Boca Raton, FL: Taylor and Francis.
16. Street, D. J., & Burgess, L. (2007). The construction of optimal stated choice experiments: Theory and methods. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
17. Demirkale, F., Donovan, D., & Street, D. J. (2013). Constructing D-optimal symmetric stated preference discrete choice experiments. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference,143, 1380–1391.
18. Bleichrodt, H., & Johannesson, M. (1997). The validity of QALYs: An experimental test of constant proportional tradeoff and utility independence. Medical Decision Making,17(1), 21–32.
19. Bleichrodt, N., Wakker, P., & Johannesson, M. (1997). Characterizing QALYs by risk neutrality. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty,15(2), 107–114.
20. Ritchie, J., & Spencer, L. (1994). Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research. In A. Bryman & R. Burgess (Eds.), Analyzing qualitative data (pp. 173–194). London: Routledge.
21. Craig, B. M., Reeve, B. B., Brown, P. M., Cella, D., Hays, R. D., Lipscomb, J., et al. (2014). US valuation of health outcomes measured using the PROMIS-29. Value in Health,17(8), 846–853.
22. Chrzan, K. (2010). Using partial profile choice experiments to handle large numbers of attributes. International Journal of Marketing Research,52(6), 827–840.
23. Flynn, T. (2010). Using conjoint analysis to estimate health state values for cost-utility analysis: Issues to consider. Pharmacoeconomics,28(9), 711–722.
24. Vass, C., Rigby, D., Campbell, S., Tate, K., Stewart, A., & Payne, K. (2014). PS2-33 investigating the framing of risk attributes in a discrete choice experiment: An application of eye-tracking and think aloud. In Paper presented at the 36th meeting of the Society for Medical Decision Making, Miami, FL.
25. Krucien, N., Ryan, M., & Hermens, F. (2014). Using eye-tracking methods to inform decision making processes in discrete choice experiments, Health Economists’ Study Group (HESG). Glasgow Caledonian University.
26. Whitty, J. A., Ratcliffe, J., Chen, G., & Scuffham, P. A. (2014). Australian public preferences for the funding of new health technologies: A comparison of discrete choice and profile case best–worst scaling methods. Medical Decision Making, 34(5), 638–654.
27. van der Pol, M., Currie, G., Kromm, S., & Ryan, M. (2014). Specification of the utility function in discrete choice experiments. Value in Health,17(2), 297–301.
28. Mulhern, B., Bansback, N., Brazier, J., Buckingham, K., Cairns, J., Devlin, N., et al. (2014). Preparatory study for the revaluation of the EQ-5D tariff: Methodology report. Health Technology Assessment, 18(12), vii–xxvi, 1–191.
29. Bansback, N., Tsuchiya, A., Brazier, J., & Anis, A. (2012). Canadian valuation of EQ-5D health states: Preliminary value set and considerations for future valuation studies. PLoS One,7(2), e31115.